Movie Review: Expelled
posted at 3:00 pm on April 18, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
While at CPAC in February, I had an opportunity to attend an advance screening of the new documentary, Expelled: The Movie. Ben Stein focuses on a perceived lack of intellectual freedom afforded to those who either believe in or investigate Intelligent Design theories in the scientific community. I wrote the following review at the time; the producers may have made some changes since, but I don’t believe it would change the thrust of my review. I plan on seeing the theatrical release this weekend, and would recommend it to everyone as at least a way to discuss the values and limitations of scientific inquiry and intellectual openness in American Academia.
The bloggers at CPAC received an invitation to screen a new documentary on academic intolerance called Expelled: The Movie this evening. The documentary features Ben Stein on a quest to understand the near-hysteria caused by scientists who so much as broach the idea of intelligent design in papers or in research. It follows Stein as he interviews professors denied tenure, editors fired, and journalists shunned for touching the subject even at its most innocuous levels.
Before discussing my feelings about the film, which is still in post-production and will not go into release until April, I should explain my approach to the ID/evolution debate. I believe evolution is demonstrably proven in enough examples to say that its effect on variation in species cannot be denied. The example I used tonight in discussing this with another viewer (certainly not the only example) is antibiotic effects on bacteria. Antibiotics that kill 99% of bacteria eventually promote the survival and the expansion of the 1% that resist them, created superbacteria that require another set of antibiotics to cure, and so on.
That said, evolution does not interfere with my faith in God. God certainly could have created the universe with a design that included life. The rational laws of nature would include evolution, as well as the myriad of other rational and mathematically provable mechanisms that undergird nature. In fact, the impulse of man to discover the rational laws of nature began with the belief in a rational God, as scientists understood nature’s rationality to reveal an intelligent Creator.
I’d go deeper than that, but Dinesh D’Souza covers it nicely enough already in his book What’s So Great About Christianity, and it’s getting late enough as it is. Suffice it to say that evolution doesn’t present a threat to my worldview.
Rationally, we have to admit that some use ID as an excuse to teach the more literal form of Creationism that has been used to argue against evolution entirely, especially against teaching evolution in primary-school classrooms. That admission does not appear in Expelled, which is a glaring omission. It tends to take out of context the frustration some scientists have about ID, and its place in polarizing the debate over its use. Properly framed, ID accepts all of the science without accepting its transformation into its own belief system.
What do I mean by that? In this, the film does an excellent job of demonstrating atheism as a belief system. Atheism as represented by Richard Dawkings and others in this film gets exposed as exactly the kind of belief system they claim to despise. They can’t prove God exists — and they can’t prove God doesn’t exist. They make the common fallacy of arguing that absence of evidence amounts to evidence of absence.
But in a way, this is all secondary to the real issue of the film: academic intolerance. The debate over ID vs Darwinism sets the table for a truly disturbing look at academia. Science should be about the free debate and research of ideas and hypotheses for duplicable results and provable theorems. However, as the examples Stein and the film provide amply show, the Darwinist academic establishment will brook no dissent from the orthodoxy — and scientists have to be shown with hidden faces to speak to the issue for the film.
Amusingly, Stein asks people how the first cell came to be. None of the scientists could give him a straight answer. Dawkins himself admits he doesn’t know and that no one else does, either — but postulates that aliens could have brought life to this planet, and then postulates that another alien civilization could have brought life to that planet, and so on. He then concedes that one entity could have been the original source … but insists that entity could not possibly have been God. For this he gives absolutely no evidence at all, relegating it as a belief system somewhat akin to Scientology.
All of this is extremely effective, as are the many allusions made to the Berlin Wall during the film. The theme runs throughout, and it explicitly refers to the defensive academic establishment as having built a wall that tramples on freedom of thought and discourse. Less effective is the heavy references to the Nazis in the movie. Although emotionally affecting for some obvious reasons, the fact is that while the Nazis were mostly Darwinists (along with a lot of other things), the vast majority of Darwinists aren’t Nazis. Certainly the eugenicists in Nazi Germany were mightily influenced by Darwinism, but America had its own eugenicists, which the film points out.
I should point out that the film has not finished production, and that changes will be made between now and its release in April. The filmmakers just completed an interview with Christopher Hitchens and will include it in the final cut. I believe other changes may be made which could address some of the criticisms I’ve written here.
Overall, though, the film presents a powerful argument not for intelligent design as much as for the freedom of scientific inquiry. If scientists get punished for challenging orthodoxy, we will not expand our learning but ossify it in concrete. Expelled: The Movie is entertaining, maddening, funny, and provocative, and well worth your time.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 … 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 … 24 »
Good grief.
apacalyps on April 20, 2008 at 4:53 PM
only that is started the universe, then evolution happened.. same umbrella..
and Charles Darwin was a racist.. if we are going down the road where one’s past actions voids anything that happens today..
this was discussed on page 16..
DaveC on April 20, 2008 at 4:56 PM
Just for grins and giggles, thought I’d note here that Pangea was not the first super-continent, but was actually the fifth such land-mass in earth’s history. So plate tectonics have played quite an active role in the world we live on. Very cool stuff.
Maquis on April 20, 2008 at 4:59 PM
You’re right. It is his ideas that count. Case in point: Meet OTA BENGA: The man who was put on display in the zoo!
The 1800’s was a really strange time in our history where some dangerous ideas started. That’s around the time when Charles Darwin’s book, “The Origin of Species” came out in 1859. In fact, after Darwin claimed in his book that human beings had developed from a common ancestor they shared with monkeys, the search for fossils to support this scenario began. But some evolutionists believed that “half-monkey half-man” creatures might be found not only in fossils, but also living in various parts of the world. At the beginning of the 1900’s the searches for the “half-monkey half-man” were the cause of many acts of savagery. One of these was the story of the pygmy Ota Benga.
Ota Benga was captured in the Congo by an evolutionist researcher called Samuel Verner in 1904. Ota, whose name meant “friend” in his own language, was 23 years old and married and the father of two children. But he was chained like an animal, put in a cage, and sent to the U.S.A. There, the evolutionary scientists put him in a cage with various species of monkey at the St. Louis World Fair and exhibited him as “the nearest link to man.” Two years later they took him to Bronx Zoo in New York and displayed him with a few chimpanzees, a gorilla called Dinah and an orang-utan called Dohung as “man’s oldest ancestors.” The evolutionist director of the zoo, Dr. William T. Horniday, gave long talks about the pride it gave him to have the “missing link,” and visitors treated Ota in his cage just like an animal. Unfortunately, things didn’t work out that well for Ota Benga (the pygmy put on display in the 1904 St Louis World’s Fair as evidence for evolution). Ota Benga eventually went insane and killed himself.
apacalyps on April 20, 2008 at 5:02 PM
We are heading for 2 grand…keep it coming…if it slows down I may have to throw out my “Mormons aren’t Christian” card, that is always good for a couple of hundred.
Meanwhile hicsuget is looking up the “big thigh” theory, and trying to disprove it, while not understanding that the faithful give about 10,000 to one (one being an atheist) on donations to worthy cause, including secular causes.
e-pirate wants to be taken seriously, but can’t quite put a logical post together, ronsfi is slipping off the cliff of logic and fossten is stepping on his clinging hands. DaveC (and apacalyps) has too much logic and may be banned for being correct and embarrassing the atheists, and we have learned that because atheists don’t give and care for anyone in need, they are actually the caring ones and the faith filled people are sanctimonious people bent on only helping themselves are not really helping but probably in the way of the atheists…who sound more like a religious cult then ever. Praise the Nothing…
That’s the up to the minute report as we head for 2,000…are you sure Mormons are Christian???
right2bright on April 20, 2008 at 5:02 PM
as far as the transitional species, in theory, there wouldn’t be too many.. the tiger would have evolved from the saber tooth tiger.. the squirrel would have evolved from that squirrel from the ‘Ice Age’ movies.. the modern animals today are descendants from the ancient animals from that movie, ‘10,000 BC’. each established on it’s own continent, slowly passing the time as.. even accounting for the drifting of continents,
pop culture aside, that is how they arived.. right?
from dawkins, I think..
DaveC on April 20, 2008 at 5:03 PM
here here..
DaveC on April 20, 2008 at 5:05 PM
OTA BENGA: The man who was put on display in the zoo!
A snippet from the site:
One of the most fascinating stories about the effects of evolution on human relations is the story of Ota Benga, a pygmy who was put on display in a zoo as an example of an evolutionarily inferior race. The incident clearly reveals the racism of evolutionary theory and the extent to which the theory gripped the hearts and minds of scientists.
Compliments of Charlie Darwin.
apacalyps on April 20, 2008 at 5:06 PM
it was dawkins or hitchens if I remember right about it..
DaveC on April 20, 2008 at 5:06 PM
Thank you for posting that.
There are “Agents of Intolerance”, but they aren’t the Christians!
Red Pill on April 20, 2008 at 5:10 PM
You mean evolution like Racquel Welch in One million BC, becoming Camilla Bella in 10,000 B.C?
Maybe evolution is real after all…
right2bright on April 20, 2008 at 5:19 PM
Classic ad hominem. Can’t debate the merits of the argument, so you attack the person. You FAIL.
fossten on April 20, 2008 at 5:20 PM
I find this interesting…
So far the atheists, in order to back up their claims, have cited such respected sage authorities as Robert Heinlein (science fiction writer), South Park (cartoon), 10,000 BC (a fictional movie), and Douglas Adams (a comedian).
Wow, I feel overwhelmed.
fossten on April 20, 2008 at 5:23 PM
Dr. Horniday, well respected scientist…why if you made fun of him you would be called…
right2bright on April 20, 2008 at 5:26 PM
Exactly. But it’s not only delusion…it’s willful delusion.
The reason why people believe evolution even though it is scientifically disproven(i.e. when species adapt they only LOSE INFORMATION they NEVER GAIN NEW INFORMATION), is because people do not want to face the fact that there is God and that they will have to be held accountable to Him!
Think about this for one moment evolutionists…
Assume there is God. He created the universe,knows everything you’ve ever done, and is completely holy.
Would you shy away from the light because you are unholy and imperfect compared to Him?
Would you want to avoid coming anywhere near the light and prefer to stay in darkness because you are ashamed?
Or maybe you are perfect and holy? In all honesty,you would know if you are or if you aren’t.
Do you seek the truth, no matter where it leads you?
No. It is more comfortable for you to believe that there is no God. It’s more comfortable for you to believe in a lie,then to know and acknowledge that you will have to face a Holy God.
We will all have to face God and be held accountable to Him.
God says He will judge the world in righteousness:
God is a Holy and Just God.
If He did not judge evil and punish it He would not be a Just Judge.
If a judge lets a murderer go free, for no reason and with no punishment, would he be a just judge?
No…he would be a corrupt judge,he would be disbarred and he would be brought to justice himself.
The reason why you know when something is right or wrong is because God has said He has written His Law in all men’s hearts.
You can’t get around this fact as an evolutionist.
There is a moral law written in all men’s hearts!
All men fall short of the glory of God and will surely face punishment for their imperfection by a Just and Holy God.
End of story right?
No.
God loves us so much that He gave us a way to avoid that fate.
God came to earth as a man(Jesus Christ),born of a woman, He lived a sinless life in thought,word and deed, and suffered the worst kind of unjust death as a sacrifice to pay for our sins! He rose from the dead in three days and defeated death.
He lives today and anyone who repents,turns from sin and puts all of their faith in Him…will be born again and filled with His Holy Spirit!
You will take on His righteousness before God on judgement day!
This is the only way that man will be saved.
This is the Gospel! (The Good News of what God has done for us to save us from hell)
You’re going to have to face God whether it’s sooner or later….10 out of 10 people die. It’s a fact.
Hell is a horrible place…I don’t want to see any of you go there. But if you reject Jesus Christ that is where you will go!
You can’t run from God forever.
How can you explain the origin of the universe if you do not even understand that you are a soul?
Understand that your un-righteousness is an abomination before the Holy God, and turn from your sin.(That is repentance)
Put all of your trust in Jesus Christ and be born again.
Don’t just believe in Him….put Him on like the parachute that saves you!
If you do this you will know that He is real!
Jesus promises to manifest Himself to all who repent and trust Him.
He will give you a new heart and new desires..you will want to obey God’s commandments.
You will be a new creature! All of your old hurt and hate and hang ups will no longer effect you!
Praise God!
hicsugut,ronsfi,MB4, other atheists,
Repent while you still can, there is not much time left!
SaintOlaf on April 20, 2008 at 5:29 PM
My collie says:
CyberCipher on April 20, 2008 at 5:29 PM
Yeah. I have no doubt about it.
By the way, Robert Gentry is a perfect example of this also… he was recognized as an international authority on polonium halos. His research was published in leading science journals. He also testified at a court case involving creation science. However, once they found out his work supported creation, he was fired from Oakridge National Laboratories in Tennessee and denied grants for his work. His co-workers at Oakridge said his work as a physicist was commendable.
The significance here is that these halos he dicovered in granite rock are solid scientific proof of the instantaneous creation spoken of in the Bible. I highly recommend anyone interested in scientific proof God did it, watch his video. Fingerprints of Creation
Forewarning: It’s a little technical the first 14 minutes, but stick with it, the second 14 gets better. Also, a little monotonic too, but it’s short — only 28 min long. Trust me. It’s well worth your time!.
apacalyps on April 20, 2008 at 5:32 PM
That’s ironic, since that basically describes Expelled. They can’t attack the merits of evolution, so they accuse “Big Science” of a conspiracy, and try to link Darwin to the Nazis.
dorkafork on April 20, 2008 at 5:32 PM
actually, the one just at the box office..
I was trying to see if I understand the theory summed up in a paragraph for a follow up question..
DaveC on April 20, 2008 at 5:38 PM
You just proved that you haven’t seen the movie.
Thank you for making my point for me. Ad hominem again.
fossten on April 20, 2008 at 5:50 PM
That Yom thing as you describe it sounds like something Bill Clinton came up with. Are you sure you haven’t been studing Bill Clinton instead of the Bible or are they both that much alike?
MB4 on April 20, 2008 at 5:50 PM
What they did was illegal, and was known to be illegal before they did it. They ignored the laws.
I have sympathy for the fix that many innocent children are in, but let’s be clear that the fault lies entirely with the people who broke the law.
Would they have violated their convictions if they had waited until these children reached the legal age limit?
Of course not. They just didn’t care what the law said.
Now the government is stuck trying to solve a situation with no good solution.
theregoestheneighborhood on April 20, 2008 at 5:51 PM
Sounds more like the government is the problem here.
Ohh noes! Did I say that out loud?
fossten on April 20, 2008 at 6:01 PM
Deliberately dense and mocking things you don’t understand. This is Hebrew translation, not spin of English words. I seriously doubt that you even read his post.
fossten on April 20, 2008 at 6:02 PM
I’ve never actually read anything by Douglas Adams, but you could stand to read a work or two by Stephen Hawking. A big crunch is simply one of the two possibilities that will result from the current, observable state of the universe—i.e. everything (when viewed on a large scale) moving apart from everything else. It’s simple gravitation, and you don’t even need relativity to understand it; classical mechanics will suffice. Just because science fact was spoken of in a work of science fiction does not mean that the underlying science is fictional.
hicsuget on April 20, 2008 at 6:05 PM
anyway.. dawkins or hitchens.. no matter.. not sure if I’ll get an answer on here anyhow..
taking in account of the continental drift and seeing how animals evolved to their modern day counterpart, then Man would have evolved separately too.. different advances of the race in different parts of the world? Or did man become hasty with primitive tools and make a raft and went out to populate the world and spoiled the gene pool for the lesser races of man?
or can I ask these questions?
DaveC on April 20, 2008 at 6:09 PM
There is no “the dating system.” There are multiple dating techniques based on the decay rates of one starting substance into another ending substance. All dating systems start with 2 basic presumptions: 1) the rate of decay has been consistent from the beginning, and 2) all the ending substance found in the item being dated came from the decay process.
Option 1 seems likely. Multiple things can destroy the assumption for option 2, though. The big one is if some of the ending substance already existed in the item before it was fossilized. This would obviously lead to the item being dated as much older than it actually is.
Some of these dating systems, notably Carbon-14, deal with much shorter date ranges than others. Not surprisingly, they are more accurate, because you can compare the dates you get from the dating method with the actual age of the item if you have some items of known age already.
The further back you go, though, the less able we are to verify the date produced, because the items being dated are from way before known history.
Unfortunately, you imply that the dating systems being used are completely independent of the theory of evolution itself. This is clearly false. It’s extremely common to date fossils based on the age of the rocks they are found in, while dating those rocks based on the fossils that were found in them. Circular reasoning, anyone?
theregoestheneighborhood on April 20, 2008 at 6:09 PM
such a shame.. Funny books.. worth a look..
DaveC on April 20, 2008 at 6:10 PM
That is a question that science cannot answer, because there exist no traces of anything that may have been before the big bang—time and space themselves did not exist prior thereunto. All science can say at this point is that the universe looks exactly like the big bang happened somehow.
Also, since you apparently spent the better part of your high school physics classes napping, please be advised that there is no such thing as a “force of energy.”
hicsuget on April 20, 2008 at 6:11 PM
no measurable time.. time did happen.. just because no clock recorded it didn’t mean it didn’t happen.. unless a supernatural entity ‘created’ time..
DaveC on April 20, 2008 at 6:14 PM
Lists have been compiled, and the names are impressive.
Physical Astronomy Johann Kepler (1571-1630)
Thermodynamics James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879)
Electric Generator Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Scientific Method Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
Hydrostatics Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Systematic Biology Carolus LinnaezV07-1778)
Law of gravity Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
Pasteurization Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)
Telegraph Samuel F. B. Morse (1791-1872)
Antiseptic Surgery Joseph Lister (1827-1912)
Electric Motor Joseph Henry (1797-1878)
Etcetera, etcetera. It was these men (Newton, Pasteur, Linnaeus, Faraday, Pascal, Lord Kelvin, Maxwell, Kepler, etc.) whose researches and analyses led to the very laws and concepts of science which brought about our modern scientific age. The mechanistic scientists of the present are dwarfed in comparison to these intellectual giants of the past. Bible-Believing Scientists of the Past by Henry Morris, Ph.D.
apacalyps on April 20, 2008 at 6:14 PM
.. while refusing to allow any questions or arguments being raised from any empirical evidence to the contrary …
The issue is not that some don’t believe in evolution. It’s that those who don’t believe in evolution are being told that no one who rejects evolution can be taken seriously as a scientist or a reasonable person, and that unless you believe in evolution, you are just clinging to myths and superstitions.
I think we’ve seen from this discussion that many evolution defenders believe exactly that.
theregoestheneighborhood on April 20, 2008 at 6:20 PM
Here’s what critics are saying about expelled (courtesy of rottentomatoes.com ):
“The film’s flippant approach undermines the seriousness of its discourse, trading less in facts than in emotional appeals”
-Justin Chang, Variety
“The movie itself is an example of design by faith and emotion rather than intelligence, defined as rationality grounded in proof.”
-Nell Minow, “The Movie Mom” Chicago Sun-Times
“Stein claims to denounce the tyranny of dogma, then browbeats us with his own.”
-Rafer Guzman, Newsday
“Stein spends the first half of the movie setting himself a trap, and the second half squirming in it.”
-Kyle Smith, The New York Post (!)
“Surely the film’s greatest offense is the utter shamelessness with which it exploits the Holocaust.”
-Ken Fox, TV Guide’s Movie Guide
Oh no, the athiest conspiracy got to TV Guide! How long before you can’t watch reruns of Touched By an Angel??
“This is propaganda, a political rant disguised as a serious commentary on stifled freedom of inquiry.”
-Claudia Puig, USA Today
and just to include a positive review:
“The film shows that Intelligent Design should be on the table for discussion. But if you’re looking for ammo to argue your Darwinist friends under the table, look elsewhere.”
-Mark Moring, Christianity Today
RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 6:20 PM
Liberty Film Festival Review
http://www.libertyfilmfestival.com/libertas/?p=9531
jp on April 20, 2008 at 6:24 PM
First answer mine… which religion is the best?
Watcher on April 20, 2008 at 6:28 PM
mine, watcher..
now can you answer, please?
:)
DaveC on April 20, 2008 at 6:29 PM
I’m curious. What do you think evolutionists would conclude if they found a full grown T-Rex living today?
apacalyps on April 20, 2008 at 6:29 PM
they would think, ‘this is the endangered species out of all the endangered species.. We need to protect this one dinosaur above all else’..
DaveC on April 20, 2008 at 6:31 PM
they were, but they didn’t get too far thanks to their worldview compared to say the last 400 years or so since the Reformation.
the Scientific Method, that modern science comes from, has exclusively Christian presuppositions from the Bible that its based on. any other world view could not have come up with it. David Hume recongized this problem 300 years ago for atheist with his “Problem of Induction”
jp on April 20, 2008 at 6:32 PM
B.S.
The Inquisition was quite contrary to the principles of Christianity. The principles of Christianity do NOT include churches using governments to persecute what they consider heresy.
theregoestheneighborhood on April 20, 2008 at 6:32 PM
This is the heart of the problem with intelligent design:
How can you call a theory that resorts to God empirical? God is not empirical, it’s supernatural. You cannot experiment on God, you can’t test for God.
Creationists claim such a great faith in God, why do they seem so desperately to need the imprimatur of science?
RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 6:32 PM
Welcome to my world. They’ve been telling me that I have no credibility because I have a talking collie. But at least I know a religion when I see one, and it is the adherents to Darwinian evolution that are clinging to myths and superstitions — and persecuting anyone that does not bow down and worship at their alter. They are the new Nazis.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on April 20, 2008 at 6:34 PM
This from a guy who believes in the Big Bang, something the “best” evo scientists cannot explain.
We’re back to “Assume an amoeba.”
Don’t stop believin’.
fossten on April 20, 2008 at 6:36 PM
Please be advised, before you get too smug, that all scientific experiments that attempted to replicate the evolutionary theory that lightning started life failed.
fossten on April 20, 2008 at 6:37 PM
You know nothing about the Inquisition, and you have just revealed this fact.
It was, in fact, Catholics persecuting Protestants. It was not Christians persecuting Atheists, for example.
fossten on April 20, 2008 at 6:39 PM
I like the talking dog gimmick, for what it’s worth.
I could care less what creationists believe, about God or about science, I just want them to stay out of the science classroom. Is that fair?
RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 6:41 PM
Not surprising. Did you not see the part of the movie where he bashes the media? Why would you expect the media to then give him a good review?
fossten on April 20, 2008 at 6:41 PM
you realize that things like the Laws of Logic, Science, Math, etc. are not Material and in fact are Immaterial Universals. That alone completely destroys the naturalist world view that everything is of material or enegery in some form.
the Biblical view is that God is what is and always has been, the alpha and Omega. or mathematically, Infinite while the creation is Finite.
jp on April 20, 2008 at 6:41 PM
Absolutely not. The movie was about censorship advocates like you. There is much scientific evidence that points to Creationism.
fossten on April 20, 2008 at 6:42 PM
The Romans made advances in engineering that the early Christian world would take more than a thousand years to catch up to. Christian monks did much to preserve what knowledge they could, but it wasn’t until some of the knowledge was brought back from the East that the Renaissance was possible.
dedalus on April 20, 2008 at 6:44 PM
Uh… alrighty then. Thanks for the info.
Btw, the post of quotes from Expelled’s reviews was smug, the post you chose to reply to was just an argument.
RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 6:44 PM
This is the last item worth commenting on before I abandon this thread to its inevitable fate. Of all the ideas presented and debated here so far, this one required the least amount of understanding to comprehend, and the continuted confusion on this point is the least justifiable of all of the absurdities proffered:
Your thesis hinges on the idea that atheism is a belief system. Of course, atheism is not a belief system—it is a dis-belief nonsystem.
You say, “I realize that Atheists think they are BELIEVERS in a nonreligion…,” but realization is not an accurate descriptor of your mental process. You are not a believer in nonIslam; you are simply not a believer in Islam. I am not a believer in a non-religion; I am simply not a believer in any relgiion.
You can be reasonably defined as a Christian, but it would be absurd to attempt to define you as a non-Hindu non-ballerina non-midget non-axe murderer non-fish. When you get up in the morning, you say to yourself, “Praise Jesus,” not “I am going to make it a point to live on land and not have gills today.”
Your attempt to cobble all non-theists into a singular belief system to which you ascribe the status of a religion is just plain foolish. I, like you, am also a non-Hindu, so by your reasoning we should be 100% in agreement as to what beliefs we do have. Clearly this is not the case.
Further, I mentioned Objectivism and Marxism as two possible belief systems atheists could choose, and said that they are very different. You seem to have failed to understand this point as well, so allow me to elucidate. A Marxist is a dialectic atomist, meaning he believes that all phenomena both human and natural are the result of the inalterable stochastic motions of atoms whose future states are determined fully by their initial conditions. An Objectivist, by contrast, believes that humans possess free will and are not slaves to fate. Clearly these are fundamentally opposed fundamental beliefs, yet you allege that the Marxist shares one and the same religion/belief system with the Objectivist.
Remember, you are an atheist with respect to all of the world’s religions save for one. You derive much of your identity from the one that you do believe in, but you derive none of your identity from the ones you don’t believe in. I have no more in common with an atheist who happens also to be a Scientologist than you have in common with a non-Zoroastrian who happens to believe in the gods of Norse mythology.
hicsuget on April 20, 2008 at 6:48 PM
That classroom that you’re talking about was paid for with MY tax dollars. It doesn’t belong to you or your colleagues.
I sent my kids to private school precisely because of people with your mind-set. I don’t like being bullied by people who “know what’s good for everyone else.”
CyberCipher on April 20, 2008 at 6:49 PM
This is the arrogance of the ignorant stereotypist on full display.
fossten on April 20, 2008 at 6:51 PM
DING DING DING! We have a winner!
fossten on April 20, 2008 at 6:51 PM
I wouldn’t concede that mathematics and logic are immaterial, or even universal, but it’s irrelevant. If science resorts to God every time a problem is too complex - and that is exactly the argument of intelligent design - then the most complex problems in science will never be resolved (which is probably the true motivation behind creationism). It’s not a philosophical problem, it’s a practical one. Science needs testable hypotheses to work, and God is not a testable hypothesis.
RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 6:56 PM
If evolutionists could realize that evolution is a theory rather than a fact, they wouldn’t be trying to hard to stamp out the possibility of ID catching on. The earth being round is an observable fact, which also matches the Bible (Isa 40:22 “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth”). Evolution is not observable, and has not been observed.
But I know why you try to make this statement. It is well known that different species of animals and bacteria adapt to changes in their environment, and this is often called “micro-evolution.” But the term is misleading, since evolution implies a continual progress, and micro-evolution actually refers to specific adaptations to specific environmental changes.
But we’re really not talking about minor adaptations, but about one species evolving from another. That is evolution, sometimes referred to as “macro-evolution” to distinguish it from adaptation that is sometimes called “micro-evolution.”
As suggested by at least one Bible verse, and which has never really been considered a conflict with Christianity.
Again, an actual observed fact not in conflict with Christianity at all.
And now you’ve stepped beyond known and observable facts. You’re also completely wrong. Evolution only addresses how how life could evolve from simpler to more complex forms. It does not address how life began. You want to argue that evolution is a proven fact, but there is no scientific evidence for how life began: just a presumption that it began without God, and a bunch of speculation about how that could have happened.
If science is about increasing the sum of human knowledge, then refusing to allow questions or objections from critics might not be the best way to go about it.
theregoestheneighborhood on April 20, 2008 at 6:57 PM
I’m getting tired of this nonsense. You have no proof of what you say. This is all in your imagination and it’s not even worth my time to explain it to you. You must be watching too many cartoons or something. What a bonehead. If, as you say, “cells didn’t have to evolve as male and female because cells reproduce asexually.” Then why did they? For one thing it’s competition for food and shelter. Why not just evolve asexually as you claim and make it easier! It is so stupid! Secondly, do you have any idea the unbelievable series of chance events must have occurred at each stage for sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans. The physical, chemical, and emotional systems of the male and female would also need to be compatible. And this string of “accidents” must have been repeated for millions of species.
What you lack in intelligence he makes up for in ignorance.
apacalyps on April 20, 2008 at 6:57 PM
hicsuget on April 20, 2008 at 6:48 PM
your non belief in a belief IS a belief in and of itself..
your believe in things not seen that means there is no god..
the church is better organized with their people..
I know christians and catholics who are liberal..
one’s politics do not determine one’s dogma..
Atheism is akin to the independent church on the corner.. with no affiliation to belong to, they end up getting lumped into ‘Protestant’ catagory in the census check list..
although atheism is more the the church of one.
But it is a system of beliefs.
DaveC on April 20, 2008 at 6:58 PM
Spent the weekend at a co-woker’s funeral……..
Is their a God?
Yes!
Seven Percent Solution on April 20, 2008 at 6:59 PM
Thank you fossten
apacalyps on April 20, 2008 at 7:00 PM
So, ID isn’t real… if you can’t lay it out on a testable hypotheses?
DaveC on April 20, 2008 at 7:01 PM
I can respect that. Is it a reasonable compromise that your child can opt out of the one week (max) unit on evolution in high school? Or make biology elective. I could live with intelligent design being offered in a philosophy class at the high school level. I understand your concerns, and I’d love to find a way to accomodate them without compromising science education. I don’t want to force you or your kids to believe anything, or even to learn anything. I just think the scientific method - and the institution of science - has proved its value enough that it deserves to make its own decisions about what is and isn’t science.
What can be done?
RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 7:04 PM
Try posing as an evolution skeptic in a discussion like this, and saying that dinosaurs lived during human history.
See how many times you get ridiculed as an ignoramus.
You are right, though, that evolution does not REQUIRE believing that dinosaurs died about over 60 million years ago. But current theories about evolution very much teach that.
theregoestheneighborhood on April 20, 2008 at 7:07 PM
snarky..
Think what we think, do what we do,.. don’t question anything we do.. we are the masters.. you.. not.
DaveC on April 20, 2008 at 7:07 PM
How many Yoms do we have left?
MB4 on April 20, 2008 at 7:09 PM
Nor is NeoDarwinian evolution.
fossten on April 20, 2008 at 7:09 PM
Yes, among other flaws.
If you’re planning on arguing that evolution isn’t a testable hypothesis, I’ll save myself some time. refer to talkorigins.com for my inevitable counterargument and get back to me with your response.
RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 7:10 PM
1763…..
When is it gonna end?
now let’s talk about creation versus evolution.
so much for the movie…..
maynila on April 20, 2008 at 7:11 PM
As Charlie Brown’s teacher would say, “Mu wa wa wa wa”. That’s how I feel reading some the answers here by evolutionists. They want to believe life started with a big bang where nothing exploded and produced everything. Then they accuse Christians of relying on faith.
The Bible talks much about the state of the world around the time of Christ’s return. These are referred to as the last days. Thought I’d let you evolutionist scoffers know your mentioned in the Bible too:
“There shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming (asking where is Jesus)? for since the fathers fell asleep (since your grandparent parents died), all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of (that means dumb on purpose), that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:” 2 Peter 3:3-5
And it says they are going to “walk after their own lusts”. See, the reason they scoff at this Book is because of their sin, not because of their science. There is no scientific reason to reject the Bible. But they don’t like this Bible because it chaps their hide. Well, get some Vaseline, man, you are going to need it! Because we’re going to be judged according to this book — whether you like it or not.
apacalyps on April 20, 2008 at 7:12 PM
You’re trying to bait and switch here - making the “institution of science” out to be something monolithic, like the Laws of Thermodynamics or something. But the fact is that you are actually referring to human beings who want to force their will on other human beings.
It’s both dishonest and arrogant.
fossten on April 20, 2008 at 7:13 PM
1. Your link is incorrect, it’s talkorigins.org.
2. I will refer you to trueorigin.org for all inevitable responses to all your inevitable counterarguments.
fossten on April 20, 2008 at 7:14 PM
Counting the day from sunset to sunset (evening and morning) is a Jewish custom to this day. If I’m not mistaken, all Jewish holy days begin at sundown and continue until sundown the next day.
The custom today is different. For what it’s worth, I think the Jewish approach is better. But I don’t live in a Jewish world…
theregoestheneighborhood on April 20, 2008 at 7:15 PM
Oh I understand alright.
It (”because one word could mean so many different things, this word (this week) means one thing, and next year (with further study) will mean another.” - right2bright) all depends on what the meaning of sex is and what the meaning of Yom is and what the meaning of is, is, just like with Bill.
MB4 on April 20, 2008 at 7:16 PM
Watch this video. Everybody. Save it in your favourites and watch it when you get time. Relax. sit back and have a nice meal while watching. This will be one of the most important videos you see in your entire life. It could save your life. I have no reason to lie to you.
You Wanted The Truth, You Got The truth, The Greatest Creation Science Video In The World… 100 Reasons why evolution is stupid!!!!
apacalyps on April 20, 2008 at 7:17 PM
You just unwittingly proved that the theory of evolution does NOT qualify as science. Science can be divided into at least four realms (perhaps more). It goes like this:
Highest level: Mathematics. Based on pure logic. Degree of certainty is 100% is the premises are true and the logic is performed flawlessly. Mathematics is in a class by itself. The other disciplines van use mathematics to model physical behavior, but htey can never equal it’s level of rigor.
2nd highest level: Some branches of physics, chemistry and engineering. What makes them special? The control experiment. Physical behavior is usually modeled on linear branches of mathematics. The results given by the control experiments are highly repeatable. Difficulty arises when physical phenomena is non-linear. In those cases, the math models are not of much use. Think turbulence or the weather.
3rd highest level: Medicine is a good example. Control experiments are possible, but not conclusive. Researchers have little or no control over important parameters that have a significant influence on the outcome of their experiments. The hallmark of these sciences is their heavy use and dependence on statistics.
4th level: Disciplines where experimentation is impossible. Paleontology, archeology, geology, astronomy are example. Advances are made when the precision of measurements instruments improve (like telescopes). These people simple write down their observations and try to interpret what they have seen. It’s not that much different than the Old Testament prophets. They wrote down their dreams and visions. Sometimes they knew what it meant. Sometimes they didn’t. The frequency and vast number of changes in the theories put forth in the field of astronomy in the past 20 years is almost comical. The entire book has to be throw in the trash bin every 10 years.
5th level: Fantasy. String theory. Darwinian evolution. Pure speculation. Completely unverifiable. Worse than religion. Worse than talking collies.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on April 20, 2008 at 7:18 PM
Right of Left..
again, with the snark..
and your page isn’t working either.. check the origins of the website to see why
i’m sure you’ll correct if I am wrong, but maybe you can help me with this..
as far as the transitional species, in theory,.. the tiger would have evolved from the saber tooth tiger.. the squirrel would have evolved from that squirrel from the ‘Ice Age’ movies.. the modern animals today are descendants from the ancient animals from that movie, ‘10,000 BC’. each established on it’s own continent, slowly passing the time as.. even accounting for the drifting of continents,
pop culture aside, that is how they arived.. right?
from dawkins or hitchens, I can’t remember which..
DaveC on April 20, 2008 at 7:18 PM
“Until we meet again, may God bless you…adios.”
apacalyps on April 20, 2008 at 7:18 PM
Think what we think, do what we do,.. don’t question anything we do.. we are the masters.. you.. not.
DaveC on April 20, 2008 at 7:07 PM
Question away, but scientists get to decide what is good science. That’s it. That’s how every human institution works - there’s an orthodoxy, defended by the most esteemed members of the profession, and it’s hard as hell to change it.
Science has proved more flexible in this respect than most, if not all, institutions.
If intelligent design hasn’t made any progress changing the minds of scientific authorities, maybe they need to work harder. Produce more research and fewer propoganda documentaries. Spend more time in the lab and less time in the courtroom.
RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 7:19 PM
Wrong.
But you are projecting. You evos make the argument that evolution is fact because we see changes within species, therefore NeoDarwinian evolution is true.
Depends on the definition of evolution and evolution.
fossten on April 20, 2008 at 7:20 PM
“Because
one wordsex could mean so many different things,this wordsex (this week) means one thing, and next year (with further study) will mean another.”-
right2brightBill ClintonMB4 on April 20, 2008 at 7:20 PM
Sorry for the spelling errors.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on April 20, 2008 at 7:21 PM
I’m the one who needs to bone up on my biology?
Why, because you linked an eighth grade “cell” website? Am I supposed to be impressed that your cell contains 19 different labeled components on the diagram? Guess what, professor, there are thousands more components in a space shuttle than in your cell.
Moreover, it’s not hard to imagine “how a cell could function prior to evolving into this current state” because the human cell described in the page is more complex than some plant cells, or bacteria, or mold. The extreme case, of course, is a virus. It doesn’t have all the functions of a human skin cell, but it still can function. Imagine that.
And we know this stuff because of “science” not “faith.” When we wanted to go to outer space, we engineered a rocket, instead of sitting in a cardboard box and praying God took us up in the air.
e-pirate on April 20, 2008 at 7:22 PM
MB4 on April 20, 2008 at 7:20 PM
that’s funny, right there.. I don’t care who you are..
DaveC on April 20, 2008 at 7:22 PM
Not at all.
I am seeing and observing.
You should try it sometime.
MB4 on April 20, 2008 at 7:23 PM
You really haven’t seen the movie yet, have you?
Kind of hard to “work harder” when all of them are fired and blackballed, unable to find work.
fossten on April 20, 2008 at 7:24 PM
could there have been an alien to help seed the planet of life?
DaveC on April 20, 2008 at 7:24 PM
God only knows and he ain’t talking.
MB4 on April 20, 2008 at 7:25 PM
When space shuttles can grow themselves, repair themselves, and reproduce themselves, you will have proved your point.
theregoestheneighborhood on April 20, 2008 at 7:26 PM
sure about that? or are you not listening?
*grins*
DaveC on April 20, 2008 at 7:27 PM
a whole new meaning to ’shuttle style’..
DaveC on April 20, 2008 at 7:28 PM
Isn’t that your whole schtick?
“Evolution sure seems unlikely! I’ll stick with God!”
You’ll have to excuse those of us who fail to be impressed with that argument. You’re welcome to stay willfully ignorant, but acting like we’re the stupid ones is just silly.
e-pirate on April 20, 2008 at 7:28 PM
Sorry about the .org.
10,000 years isn’t a lot of time in evolutionary terms or geological terms - continental drift occurs on the order of a few cm per year. I’m not sure what you’re asking - did the tiger evolve from the saber tooth tiger? Not necessarily, although they shared a common anscestor.
RightOFLeft on April 20, 2008 at 7:29 PM
And again you manifest your gross ignorance of the cell, which is far more complex than the space shuttle, yet you believe it happened by chance while admitting the space shuttle was designed.
Comical.
fossten on April 20, 2008 at 7:29 PM
Apples and oranges again.
If I wanted to be asinine like you I could say “let me know when cells are capable for carrying 7 men and tons of cargo into orbit.”
e-pirate on April 20, 2008 at 7:30 PM
LOL you don’t even know what I was referring to. Ad hominem is one thing, but intellectual laziness (mere scrolling up was all that was necessary) is laughable.
fossten on April 20, 2008 at 7:32 PM
Uh…you’re the one who made the comparison between the space shuttle and the cell, not him. FAIL.
fossten on April 20, 2008 at 7:32 PM
Stop counting space shuttle tiles. Yeah, each one is different and has it’s own number in the database, but they are all made out the same material. As a seven year veteran of NASA, I strongly suspect that you are mistaken. The shuttle only recently got it’s CPUs upgraded to 1990′ Intel chip technology. From the stuff that I’ve read, the biology of a cell is vastly more complex. The DNA strand alone, if straightened out, would stretch from the earth to the moon and back several times.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on April 20, 2008 at 7:33 PM
1) Evolution doesn’t happen by chance, for the millionth time
2) You’ve established that you don’t understand how either cells or space shuttles work, and have decided that cells are complex abitrarily
3) You haven’t provided any logical reason that because a space shuttle was engineered, that means cells were designed
Way to go.
e-pirate on April 20, 2008 at 7:35 PM
That is just speculation on your part.
God is a testable hypothesis.
He tells you how to test His existence.
How can you say God is not a testable hypothesis just because you haven’t tested His promise yet?
Try it first and then tell me about it.
SaintOlaf on April 20, 2008 at 7:38 PM
Comment pages: « 1 … 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 … 24 »